The Weather Channel isn't really known for quality science reporting. They good at taking National Weather Service data and making it into pretty graphs presented primarily by attractive youngsters (with a few notable exceptions). They're also good at creating faux weather drama. Not sure why anyone would trust anything they have to say about geology even if they're claiming to simply be repeating what others have said. Which isn't to say that the day won't come that Cascadia has a earthquake that causes maps to be redrawn. Just that I'm not taking The Weather Channel's opinion as something of value.

EngineerAU:The Weather Channel isn't really known for quality science reporting. They good at taking National Weather Service data and making it into pretty graphs presented primarily by attractive youngsters (with a few notable exceptions). They're also good at creating faux weather drama. Not sure why anyone would trust anything they have to say about geology even if they're claiming to simply be repeating what others have said. Which isn't to say that the day won't come that Cascadia has a earthquake that causes maps to be redrawn. Just that I'm not taking The Weather Channel's opinion as something of value.

/Time to look up the primary sources!

I've noticed recently that they're turning their front page into BuzzFeed or Upworthy + weather. The headlines there now (aside from the "Winter Storm Wiley" that they made up) are all designed to annoy:

WOW: Watch What This Cheetah DoesAmazing Discovery Under Los AngelesThe City With the Worst Traffic Is ...Famous Landmarks That Look Amazing... Until You Zoom Out

This is one of the reasons Seattle is building a tunnel along their waterfront. Because the elevated freeway in downtown Seattle could collapse in a large earthquake. So they build a tunnel along the waterfront? *scratching head*

Seriously though, this worries me enough that I put together a two week kit, but I'm not so worried I'll move away from this beautiful area.

The Cascadia subduction zone generates a megathrust every 300-500 years. The last one was 300 years ago. We could have another one any day, but it certainly isn't imminent. We definitely need to be ready NOW, but it's more likely that it will happen in 100 years or so than tomorrow. Anyone who says we are "overdue" is talking out of their ass. We are "due", but barely.

Thus said, this country is so goddamn slow at getting ready for shiat, that even if it comes at the end of the probability window we likely won't be ready.

Whatthefark:This is one of the reasons Seattle is building a tunnel along their waterfront. Because the elevated freeway in downtown Seattle could collapse in a large earthquake. So they build a tunnel along the waterfront? *scratching head*

Seattle needs to tear down the Alaskan Way Viaduct because it's the same design as the Cypress freeway that collapsed in Oakland in 1989. They can't do without the freeway, but they are taking advantage of the opportunity to put it under ground, so that they can re-open the waterfront and beautify the city, things which were not a priority (there or anywhere) when it was built in the 1950s.

I don't think anyone is necessarily claiming that a tunnel is a safer alternative than above ground, only that the new solution is safer than the old one.

ImpendingCynic:Whatthefark: This is one of the reasons Seattle is building a tunnel along their waterfront. Because the elevated freeway in downtown Seattle could collapse in a large earthquake. So they build a tunnel along the waterfront? *scratching head*Seattle needs to tear down the Alaskan Way Viaduct because it's the same design as the Cypress freeway that collapsed in Oakland in 1989. They can't do without the freeway, but they are taking advantage of the opportunity to put it under ground, so that they can re-open the waterfront and beautify the city, things which were not a priority (there or anywhere) when it was built in the 1950s.

I don't think anyone is necessarily claiming that a tunnel is a safer alternative than above ground, only that the new solution is safer than the old one.

As a long time resident of Seattle, the odds of the council following thru with the waterfront park plan they sold us are slim to none. It will get modified and adjusted and it'll end up being 3 acres of grass surrounded by condos that sprang up on the land freed from the Viaduct.

If there is a massive earthquake in the area, all the nuclear waste in Hanford will leak into the Pacific and the mega-tsunamis will sweep that and all the radioactive waste from the failed Fukushima reactors back across the Pacific all the way to Japan. Of course, there's the possibility of creating a Godzilla-like creature from all that radioactive sludge, but that's a risk you have to take in life.

Surool:Notice the article calls it "California's greatest threat" in spite of the fact it will do far more damage elsewhere.

Self centered pricks.

Well, when a giant wall of water comes crashing through Los Angeles that originated from us up in Seattle shaking around like Richard Simmons in a spin class after the big one, I don't think there's going to be too much left down there either.

Iczer:Surool: Notice the article calls it "California's greatest threat" in spite of the fact it will do far more damage elsewhere.

Self centered pricks.

Well, when a giant wall of water comes crashing through Los Angeles that originated from us up in Seattle shaking around like Richard Simmons in a spin class after the big one, I don't think there's going to be too much left down there either.

I'm in the Seattle area, and I have much more to worry about than anyone in California. If you look at the tsunami simulators, East Asia has a bigger problem than anyplace in California.

StopLurkListen:So, Seattle's doomed to be destroyed in an earthquake just like San Francisco, except it has 390 days of rain a year -- AND a nearby volcano ready to blow it all to pieces, too?

Why are all the nice places on the planet trying to kill us all?

[mail.colonial.net image 770x547]

The Portland/Vancouver area where I live sits on what is basically a massive drain with loose, wet soil. Ground liquification would destroy all underground utilities and sink large buildings. I doubt Mt Hood would erupt, but Mt. St. Helens would blow again. Some have said Mt. Adams could awaken too.

Meh, this isn't news in the Northwest. We've been getting ready for 20 years. If you live in a building built in the last 20 years, you'll probably be fine. If it's been built since the Nisqually quake, even better. Most new construction is cleared to withstand the big one. As for a tsunami, most of the Sound is probably safe. Wouldn't hurt to get up a hill (of which there are plenty) if the big one hits, but it's probably not really necessary.

And luckily Rainier will probably only destroy Tacoma when it blows, and that's no real loss.

So, Seattle's doomed to be destroyed in an earthquake just like San Francisco, except it has 390 days of rain a year

That, the cost of living and being way too far north for my SAD are the strikes against it.

San Diego would be better. In the winter I won't stay farther north than around I-80: being bummed out 5 months of the year in the Bay area for three years was a total waste except that it helped the newly graduated chick I was hanging with get a job and stay in one place long enough find a husband/father (with my blessing, I don't do that).

The One True TheDavid:That, the cost of living and being way too far north for my SAD are the strikes against it.

San Diego would be better. In the winter I won't stay farther north than around I-80: being bummed out 5 months of the year in the Bay area for three years was a total waste except that it helped the newly graduated chick I was hanging with get a job and stay in one place long enough find a husband/father (with my blessing, I don't do that).

I've lived here in Portland for four years now, and I have to say that the rain hasn't been nearly as big of a problem as it was hyped up to be. The way I see it, everywhere in the contiguous United States has at least one season that sucks ass. But in about a week, it will get nice up here, and it will be nice until the end of October. And there really are only about 2-3 months where it is dreadful. But the summers are the nicest there are. I'll take a dreary January over a 120 degree July (I've tried both).

If you want great weather all the time, you have to move to Goroka. And that has its own set of challenges.

Hollie Maea:The One True TheDavid: That, the cost of living and being way too far north for my SAD are the strikes against it.

San Diego would be better. In the winter I won't stay farther north than around I-80: being bummed out 5 months of the year in the Bay area for three years was a total waste except that it helped the newly graduated chick I was hanging with get a job and stay in one place long enough find a husband/father (with my blessing, I don't do that).

I've lived here in Portland for four years now, and I have to say that the rain hasn't been nearly as big of a problem as it was hyped up to be. The way I see it, everywhere in the contiguous United States has at least one season that sucks ass. But in about a week, it will get nice up here, and it will be nice until the end of October. And there really are only about 2-3 months where it is dreadful. But the summers are the nicest there are. I'll take a dreary January over a 120 degree July (I've tried both).

If you want great weather all the time, you have to move to Goroka. And that has its own set of challenges.

a whole 4 years?

get back to me after 40+ years

/starting to understand snowbirds more & more the longer i live here/we've had some pretty dry winters last few years & don't get our rain & mt. snow til spring

inner ted:Hollie Maea: The One True TheDavid: That, the cost of living and being way too far north for my SAD are the strikes against it.

San Diego would be better. In the winter I won't stay farther north than around I-80: being bummed out 5 months of the year in the Bay area for three years was a total waste except that it helped the newly graduated chick I was hanging with get a job and stay in one place long enough find a husband/father (with my blessing, I don't do that).

I've lived here in Portland for four years now, and I have to say that the rain hasn't been nearly as big of a problem as it was hyped up to be. The way I see it, everywhere in the contiguous United States has at least one season that sucks ass. But in about a week, it will get nice up here, and it will be nice until the end of October. And there really are only about 2-3 months where it is dreadful. But the summers are the nicest there are. I'll take a dreary January over a 120 degree July (I've tried both).

If you want great weather all the time, you have to move to Goroka. And that has its own set of challenges.

a whole 4 years?

get back to me after 40+ years

/starting to understand snowbirds more & more the longer i live here/we've had some pretty dry winters last few years & don't get our rain & mt. snow til spring

Hollie Maea:inner ted: Hollie Maea: The One True TheDavid: That, the cost of living and being way too far north for my SAD are the strikes against it.

San Diego would be better. In the winter I won't stay farther north than around I-80: being bummed out 5 months of the year in the Bay area for three years was a total waste except that it helped the newly graduated chick I was hanging with get a job and stay in one place long enough find a husband/father (with my blessing, I don't do that).

I've lived here in Portland for four years now, and I have to say that the rain hasn't been nearly as big of a problem as it was hyped up to be. The way I see it, everywhere in the contiguous United States has at least one season that sucks ass. But in about a week, it will get nice up here, and it will be nice until the end of October. And there really are only about 2-3 months where it is dreadful. But the summers are the nicest there are. I'll take a dreary January over a 120 degree July (I've tried both).

If you want great weather all the time, you have to move to Goroka. And that has its own set of challenges.

a whole 4 years?

get back to me after 40+ years

/starting to understand snowbirds more & more the longer i live here/we've had some pretty dry winters last few years & don't get our rain & mt. snow til spring

inner ted:Hollie Maea: inner ted: Hollie Maea: The One True TheDavid: That, the cost of living and being way too far north for my SAD are the strikes against it.

San Diego would be better. In the winter I won't stay farther north than around I-80: being bummed out 5 months of the year in the Bay area for three years was a total waste except that it helped the newly graduated chick I was hanging with get a job and stay in one place long enough find a husband/father (with my blessing, I don't do that).

I've lived here in Portland for four years now, and I have to say that the rain hasn't been nearly as big of a problem as it was hyped up to be. The way I see it, everywhere in the contiguous United States has at least one season that sucks ass. But in about a week, it will get nice up here, and it will be nice until the end of October. And there really are only about 2-3 months where it is dreadful. But the summers are the nicest there are. I'll take a dreary January over a 120 degree July (I've tried both).

If you want great weather all the time, you have to move to Goroka. And that has its own set of challenges.

a whole 4 years?

get back to me after 40+ years

/starting to understand snowbirds more & more the longer i live here/we've had some pretty dry winters last few years & don't get our rain & mt. snow til spring

In fairness, I lived here back in the 80s as well.

does it seem as rainy now as then ?

Yes and no. We get as much rain as we used to (except for this year) but it comes more in bunches rather than the months long slog we used to get.